I originally hypothesized that school shootings were a rare occurance, but not unheard of, and had just lacked media attention. Now, after massive amounts of media attention, I think the numbers might be going up; though I lack data to prove my theory one way or the other.

I think kids are killing each other because the inroads of violent memes are finally starting to reach peoples conscious minds. I think it's a confluence of many factors -- e.g. television, politics, economics, social organization, semiotics, etc. -- that have culminated recently in the conceptual schemata of our youth as a disconnect between action and consequence, violence and suffering. It seems to me like the patterns of our macro are finally starting to seep into the micro.

JT- I'm thinking of school shootings in specific, not overall incidents of violence; though I will admit my perceptions may well be skewed by mass media coverage of school shootings in recent years, which did not occur in the past to such a degree. One would also have to take into account population growth. School crowding might also play a part (ie; Crowding=one of many possible stressors) soooo... I'd want something showing shootings/year, and something perhaps shootings/school population size.

The stories being referred to here include a one-on-one shooting that happened in a school and a crime of passion. They are being added in to encourage the image of an increase in overall "rampage style shootings at school." The former while tragic is not in anyway unusual in the US, and the latter just happens to involve teachers as a beside the point fact. Neither are really the specter of the feared rampage shootings. Looking at the story link, we also have a shooting at a Ohio city council meeting being thrown in by the article.

Gun violence is horrific, but the notion its new, or that some unconscious meme has developed does not follow from the information at hand.

I will freely admit that my above statement was an expression of my feelings on the issue and in no way represents actual data compiled on my part. However, feelings are an entirely valid criterion by which to base an analysis of the state of reality. Granted: there are many criterion by which we should gauge our surroundings, hard data assuredly being one of them, but the representational power of hard data never seems to penetrate down to the micro, completely subjective reality of each of our individual lives. I believe that is where feelings enter as a viable analytical tool. And besides, do you honestly expect our interpretation of what data means to truly delineate the actual pattern of reality in all its subtle glory and innumerable levels of complexity?

Now I've only been alive for a quarter-century, and I have only second-hand knowledge of everything that happened prior to my birth, but I do know that things are different now. And I don't mean different in any over-arching way, just in the our-planet-has-displaced-through-space/time-and-will-never-return-to-any-previously-held-position-at-any-time-in-the-career-of-mankind sorta way. Now given that time doesn't stand still, nor does the planet, nor our bodies, given that our actual physical makeup completely supplants itself with new matter something like every seven years, how in the world can you claim that anything that exists now is not novel compared to the past? Despite the appearance of an endless cycle of repetition, time's flow is in fact accumulative, and there is no reason to believe ipso facto that things are not worse.

I agree that it definitely <em>feels</em> like violent confrontations in public are have become more common since I was born. (uhh, i mean, if that's what you guys are saying.)

someone really should do a Frank Miller style comic about a superhero who protects the middle class from fearsome puberty trenchcoat berserkers. I'm still kinda buummed on all the cheap Cho-bashing that was encouraged after the VT incident, I'd get a real catharsis out of seeing this phenomenon treated in a satirical way..

When did I make the assertion that violence has increased? I'm rereading my previous posts and I can't find any statement made by myself to that effect.

I just thinks it's obvious that the children raised in today's society are dealing with a reality and a collection of memes in a form that did not exist the previous generation, who were raised in a societal form that was different from their predecessors, and so on all the way back to the beginning of mankind's burgeoning gene/culture co-evolution. And different environments produce different people. So if each generation is presented with a different set of environmental factors than the previous, and differing environmental factors induce a differentiation of development, then it follows that every generation would develop into a unique personality profile. This seems entirely logical to me. And if the environmental factors are structured so as to induce a milder reaction to violence, than one would expect to see an increase in violence (to satiate one's need for quantification). Now, whether or not the particular environmental factors of today's society are structured so as to induce blah blah blah is up for debate; I believe they are, but that's, like, my opinion, man.

One explanation I could give for the discrepency between what I feel and the data is that data is inherently flawed and will never be capable of actually delineating the true shape of reality.

There was a report published either today or yesterday here in the UK that said more and more children are carrying knives on them because they're scared, because they heard on the news or on tv about the rise in school stabbings and wanted to protect themselves. thus leading to more stabbings... i don't have a link 'cause i heard it on the radio at work.

Next day, got to school in my ankle-length trench, army surplus boots and black 'goth uniform' (very rebellious, I know).

I was asked with a shove to the chest why, "people like you do this shit".

I shrugged and answered, "because you fucking hate us, and we hate you right back".

Realising it wasn't getting them anywhere to threaten a pasty-faced stick, they decided to really ask why this shit happened. I told them I didn't know, but answered as many questions I could based on what I'd seen in the news, and based on personal experience. The teacher singled me out, told me to stay behind, and the rest of the day was spent fielding the same questions over-and-over to different groups of students. The worst group to address were my 'peers', the other fuck-ups and stoners and geeks. They wanted to be bitter and callous about it. It became a heated and nasty argument about personal choices and accountability. It was also the only group to direct ire at the teachers.

* * *

As an adult all I can say is that the teachers don't make enough. Imagine a career that's a constant uphill battle with customers who are never satisfied and resources that are depleted to nothing before the job's done. I don't know about you, but my job isn't that hard. And I certainly don't get spat at, threatened or shot at.

man, teachers are masochists. seems like in most schools, teachers are treated like students by their bosses-- ie, we've changed the curriculum, this is what you're teaching now (and no more than this), no discussion just get out there and let's see some higher test scores.